nednobbins

We're likely to see a variant of Moore's law when it comes to satellites. Launch costs will keep going down. Right now we have Starlink with a working satellite internet system and China with a nascent one. As the costs come down we'll likely see more and more countries, companies, organizations and individuals will be able to deploy their own systems.

A government would need to negotiate with every provider to get them to block signals over their country. Jamming is always hard. You could theoretically jam all communications or communications on certain frequency bands but it's not clear how you would selectively jam satellite internet.

There's a much bigger story here.
Think about how hard it was to discover this access point. Even after it was reported and there was a known wi-fi network and the access point was known to be on a single ship, it took the Navy months to find it.

Starlink devices are cheap and it will be nearly impossible to detect them at scale. That means that anyone can get around censors. If the user turns off wi-fi, they'll be nearly impossible to detect. If they leave wi-fi on in an area with a lot of wi-fi networks it will also be nearly impossible to detect. A random farmer could have Starlink in their hut. A dissident (of any nation) could hide the dish behind their toilet.

As competing networks are launched, users will be able to choose from the least restricted network for any given topic.

The effect is mostly from the total number of computer users increasing.

That is, the total number of "tech-savvy" users keeps increasing (https://datausa.io/profile/cip/computer-science-110701) but the number of "non-tech-savvy" computer users has absolutely exploded (https://semiconalpha.substack.com/p/global-semiconductor-sales-increase) (that actually undercounts computers since every dollar in 2020 buys you much more computer power than a dollar in 1987)

You had to pass a nerd gauntlet just to get online in the 80's or 90's that meant that everyone you met online had also passed that gauntlet and was tech savvy. Even if you looked in the social usenet groups, a lot of non-technical users were just filtered out. So it looked like everyone was tech savvy but that's because we were sampling a tiny, tech-savvy portion of the population.

Now anyone can get online. The tech savvy gen-zers are still there but their hidden in a sea of non-technical users. If you go to places like Github or Hackernews (or even more specifically technical fora), you'll find plenty of enthusiastic young people poking at technology and trying to make it better. They no longer have to mess around with autoexec.bat and config.sys to get their mouse working but they can (and do) get a bunch of Jupyter notebooks and start playing around with Tensorflow.

A great modern example of this is 3-D printing. Modern 3-D printers suck. If you're a big company you can get super expensive 3-D printers that take up giant rooms and need a team of experts to run. If you're a home user you can get a cheap FDM printer but you best be prepared to tinker with it. The first thing most people do with their Ender is print mods for their Ender. Bambu Labs is a big improvement but they also attract a lot of users who at least could mod their printer https://forum.bambulab.com/c/bambu-lab-x1-series/user-mods/19

Some day we may have little boxes like in "Diamond Age". Kids in the future may not even know about crap like bed adhesion and stringing and they'll concentrate on whatever the new problems are revealed once the current ones are taken care of.

That sounds just fine. I'm pretty suspicious of someone who claims that being able to save 30 seconds typing that post would make you more tech savvy.

I think that true "tech-savvyness" isn't really a generational thing.

Some people are just really curious about how stuff works. When they see something they aren't satisfied with, "Just do it." or "Shit just works." They want to know how and why it works. When you hand those people a computer, machine or flower they'll poke at it and try to understand it better.

It's not clear that typing skills are actually needed for that.

I max out at around 80-100 WPM but I only sustain that when I'm transcribing something. When I need to learn about technology, it's much more about reading than typing. When I actually need to do some coding, I spend much more time staring at the screen and looking up stuff on Stackoverlow than I do actually typing.

Most of Z is not savvy at all, just like with every generation. And just like with every generation, some of them will push the envelope of technology. I doubt that lack of typing will slow those folks down.

FOIA requests generally don't involve hackers or leaks. The act exists because citizens insisted that government provides visibility into its inner workings.

What is the equivalent for Google, or any other private company?

It's hard to draw meaningful conclusions form a single 4 year period. There have been several instances of corruption (and significant externalized costs) in private firms that went on for much longer than 4 years.

I agree that there is a lot of corruption in government but there's a long gap between that and no accountability. We see various forms of government accountability on a regular basis; politicians lose elections, they get recalled, and they sometimes even get incarcerated. We also have multiple systems designed to allow any citizen to influence government.

None of these systems and safeguards are anywhere close to perfect but it must be better than organizations that don't even have these systems in the first place.

What makes governments any more susceptible to corruption than a private organization?

I'm not actually talking about governments having absolute control. That's a pretty extreme scenario to jump to from from the question of if it's better for a private company or a government to control search.

Right now we think Google is misusing that data. We can't even get information on it without a leak. The government has a flawed FOIA system but Google has nothing of the sort. The only way we're protected from corruption at Google (and historically speaking several other large private organization) is when the government steps in and stops them.

Governments often handle corruption poorly but I can rattle of many cases where governments managed to reduce corruption on their own (ie without requiring a revolution). In many cases the source of that corruption was large private organizations.

Why is that better? It may not be ideal but governments have at least some accountability.

They could have left out, "for LGBTQ+ people" and it would have been just as accurate.

That's the sister. Anon sounds like he has limited means. No need to make fun of them for being poor.

Lindt is pretty good as packaged chocolate goes. You can always find some fancy artisanal chocolatier if you can afford to spend a few bucks per chocolate but for a HS student Lindt is pretty high tier.